Social Media & Politics Social media has not been around a terribly long time in terms of years and time spent. However, the days of when MySpace fully came onto the scene was not that long ago. Since then, Facebook has asserted a massive presence. That presence has been used by Facebook itself and others to change the face of different realms of society. Just one of those realms would happen to be the political scene. However, there are plenty of people that disagree about how much impact social medic could or should have when it comes to politics. While Malcolm Gladwell is quick to point out that social media has ignited social activities and levels of political activity not seen before, he insists that social media cannot replace the real depth, breadth and substance of what makes politics work.

Analysis

The interesting way in which Gladwell is wont to speak about social media and the effects it will have is that the revolution will “not be tweeted”. Indeed, the initial anecdote in the story is about something that happened half a century ago, when black people were often barred from doing so such as using the “wrong” restroom, water fountain or eating establishment. Gladwell’s assertion, in general, is that while social media is most certainly part of the calculus when looking at what is going on in the world, it is not the true catalyst of what is going on. Gladwell uses Twitter as an example and explains that the movements in areas like Iran and within Al Qaeda are all well and good. However, they are not actually created and perpetuated by Twitter and the rest of social media. Instead, he indicates that the changes in society are just mirrored and shown by social media, rather than being created by the same. In other words, social media certainly has had an impact on things like the Arab Spring and what not. However, to suggest that social media is the sole (or even the main) progenitor of such movements would be specious. The precise words Gladwell uses to speak to this...

He concedes that the claims are rather aggressive. However, he finds them to be a little over the top and inaccurate. Another reason he says this is because social media is prone to what he calls “stagecraft”, much more so than the propaganda and such that is prolific even when social media and the internet is not in the paradigm (Gladwell).
The author of this response would certainly agree with this statement. In terms of what could or should be done to change that effect, there is the idea that social media should actually resemble and reflect the values and intentions of the people that are using it. Rather than being a vehicle for “fake news” and posts that are somewhat or extremely selective about what is said, what is not said and how all of the above is presented, there should instead of a revamp of how politicians interact with the public. The manner in which social media is used today for activism and political activities is just a modern extension of what has gone on for years. The “stagecraft” that is mentioned by Gladwell is just happening in different and new ways as technology and communication capabilities expand and change. What needs to happen to change this is less about the technology that is being used and more about the authenticity and motives of what is actually being said. After all, despots and dictators like Kim Jong Un are not going to be swayed by people like Donald Trump spouting off on Twitter. It may create more and more varied responses to the like. However, Kim Jong Un and others are just doing what they already do via other mediums such as their state-controlled media outlets and in the public square. In other words, social media is just a modern manifestation and example of the same truth or lies that were already there (Adams).

In terms of what a specific example would be to change that, politicians should instead find actual core values and beliefs rather than having to change their…